I suggested that the reason that we never see wizards apparate in or out of houses might be because all wizarding residences are protected against that mode of entry, as Hogwarts is.
David pointed out that actually, we do see Arthur Weasley apparate into his own home, and Meg thoughtfully provided the canon:
But we do see Arthur Weasley apparating into his house. "Before any of them could say anything else, there was a faint popping noise, and Mr. Weasley appeared out of thin air at George's shoulder." (GoF 52)
Quite right, Meg and David! Sorry. I had completely forgotten about that.
Meg:
So it must therefore be possible to apparate into a house since everyone was in the kitchen at the time. I think even Harry would have noticed had Arthur walked into the room from outside rather than just apparating in.
Agreed. It does seem quite a security risk, though, doesn't it? How does one protect oneself against burglars? I wonder if, as Eloise suggested, household protections can be keyed to exempt certain individuals.
Ali wrote:
The message that these ordinary wizards can apparate together with the fact that wizards take their apparation test at the age of 17, suggests to me that Apparation is a readily acquirable skill (similar to our driving test which British muggles can also take from the age of 17).
That was certainly the way I interpreted it. Honestly, it was not until I joined this list that it even occurred to me that apparating might be an unusually difficult skill. I had assumed it to be something that nearly every adult wizard knew how to do, much like driving here in the US (we also get our driver's licenses at around the age of 17, BTW, Ali, although this can vary from state to state).
Mentions of people failing their apparation tests the first time around and so forth I had also interpreted as a direct analogue to driving. Many people have difficulty passing their driver's test the first time out. And as for Percy showing off by apparating up and down the stairs, I had always imagined that this was "showing off" not because it is really all that difficult a skill for normal adult wizards who have been doing it for years, but because Percy is only seventeen. It's a new skill for him, and it's one that his younger siblings aren't allowed to do yet, so he's having a bit of fun with it, and indulging in a bit of gloating as well. I went out driving my parents' car just for the fun of it when I first got my driver's license. I even volunteered to do the shopping, just so that I could get to drive the car. And when I saw friends who hadn't passed their tests yet, I waved at them and gloated merrily. In fact, if I could have driven the car up and down the stairs, then I probably would have done that, too. ;-)
Of course, these days I take the bus to work, and whenever somebody asks me for a ride to the airport, I roll my eyes and sigh and wonder out loud in a long-suffering sort of way why on earth I should always have to be the one to drive everybody to the airport.
Ah, the joys of getting old and cranky.
Still Ali:
Perhaps JKR invented "splinching" and other apparation mistakes (Charlie landing 5 miles from his destination during his test) to explain why apparation is not the only mode of transport - so that broomsticks, the Knight Bus and Ministry cars could be convincingly used.
Well, driving is really quite dangerous as well, isn't it?
Primarily, I think that splinching is just furthering along the driving analogue: it's a car accident. I also agree with you, though, that it also serves quite handily to explain the existence of other modes of transport, as well as to explain why apparating is reserved for licenced adults.
I also suspect that it may be there to provide JKR with an out to explain away just the sort of objections that have come up in the course of this discussion: why wizards in combat situations don't simply disapparate out of trouble, for example, or why we won't be seeing too many brutally efficient assassinations conducted by rapidly apparating and disapparating hit wizards in future canon.
I don't really think that JKR wants such events happening too often, because while once it could be so shocking as to be extremely emotionally effective, too much of it would quickly become under-dramatic. The perils of splinching give JKR a very handy excuse for not allowing her fictive reality to become overrun with the kind of plot resolutions which, while they may indeed be logical, pragmatic, efficient and utterly in-character, would also offer her a very limited scope for the kind of dramatic confrontation that she as a writer prefers.
—Elkins
Leave a comment